Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

[Thomas Beale]

On 05/01/2019 12:56, Ian McNicoll wrote:
There is a very clear use-case for having it there - O2 levels 
variably and equivalently described a FiO2 which is a unitary 
proportion or percent.


I think we need to keep it for that reason if no other.


So in that case we need to upgrade the documentation for when to choose 
a DV_QUANTITY percent, and when a DV_PROPORTION %.


- thomas



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

[Ian McNicoll]

There is a very clear use-case for having it there - O2 levels variably and
equivalently described a FiO2 which is a unitary proportion or percent.

I think we need to keep it for that reason if no other.

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll


Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL


On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 12:07, Thomas Beale  wrote:

> Hi Silje,
>
> See here
> .
> But I think the % case may have been there since early 2000s and either %
> was not in UCUM, or perhaps it was, but we did not realise it. So ideally
> we should change the documentation to obsolete it in DV_PROPORTION.
>
> - thomas
> On 04/01/2019 20:40, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
>
> In that case, I don't understand the use case for the 'percent' and 'unitary' 
> variants of the DV_PROPORTION data type. What are they for?
>
> Regards,
> Silje
>
> -Original Message-
> From: openEHR-technical  
>  On Behalf Of Thomas Beale
> Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 8:38 PM
> To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
> Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %
>
>
> On 03/01/2019 08:37, David Moner wrote:
>
> I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is
> not a proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT.
>
> DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the
> numerator and denominator explicitly separated, as a fraction, which
> should not be the case with percentages. But it is true that the
> definition of the type attribute in the specification is a bit
> misleading: "Indicates semantic type of proportion, including percent,
> unitary etc."
>
> David is right on all counts - use DV_QUANTITY, but we should fix that line 
> in the specification. Can someone raise a PR on that please.
>
> - thomas
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing 
> listopenEHR-technical@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing 
> listopenEHR-technical@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
> --
> Thomas Beale
> Principal, Ars Semantica 
> Consultant, ABD Project, Intermountain Healthcare
> 
> Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation
> 
> Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
> 
> Health IT blog  | Culture blog
>  | The Objective Stance
> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

[Thomas Beale]

Hi Silje,

See here 
. 
But I think the % case may have been there since early 2000s and either 
% was not in UCUM, or perhaps it was, but we did not realise it. So 
ideally we should change the documentation to obsolete it in DV_PROPORTION.


- thomas

On 04/01/2019 20:40, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:

In that case, I don't understand the use case for the 'percent' and 'unitary' 
variants of the DV_PROPORTION data type. What are they for?

Regards,
Silje

-Original Message-
From: openEHR-technical  On Behalf 
Of Thomas Beale
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 8:38 PM
To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %


On 03/01/2019 08:37, David Moner wrote:

I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is
not a proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT.

DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the
numerator and denominator explicitly separated, as a fraction, which
should not be the case with percentages. But it is true that the
definition of the type attribute in the specification is a bit
misleading: "Indicates semantic type of proportion, including percent,
unitary etc."

David is right on all counts - use DV_QUANTITY, but we should fix that line in 
the specification. Can someone raise a PR on that please.

- thomas



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


--
Thomas Beale
Principal, Ars Semantica 
Consultant, ABD Project, Intermountain Healthcare 

Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation 

Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society 

Health IT blog  | Culture blog 
 | The Objective Stance 

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

RE: Christmas greetings from the CKM team

[Sam Heard]

Thank you for the great report Heather. It is such a big undertaking and you 
have made a wonderful start.
Cheers, Sam

From: openEHR-clinical  On Behalf 
Of Heather Leslie
Sent: Friday, 21 December 2018 7:25 PM
To: For openEHR clinical discussions 
Cc: For openEHR technical discussions ; 
For openEHR implementation discussions 
Subject: Christmas greetings from the CKM team

Hi everyone,

What a year it has been, and great to be able to reflect back on achievements 
and the gathering momentum.

Silje Ljosland Bakke and myself, as clinical program leads would like to thank 
everyone for their contributions and efforts over the year.

Some stats to provide some insight into the ‘state of the CKM’ and activity 
over the year:

  *   Archetypes
 *   443 archetypes available, distributed over 35 projects; and a further 
102 ungoverned ones evolving in incubators
 *   In projects: 322 are draft; 26 currently undergoing review; 79 are 
published for content
 *   In the past 12 months, 16  archetypes were published; 203 archetypes 
were modified; 66 were created and added to CKM as new models
 *   Archetypes for ECG report and alcohol consumption are just on the 
brink of publication – we can expect them to be published very early in the new 
year.
  *   Templates
 *   85 templates have been submitted, mostly as examples of modelling for 
specific scenarios; 77% are in ungoverned incubators
 *   None have been reviewed to final publication status
  *   Translations
 *   Over the years there have been many archetypes that have been 
translated – we currently have representations in 24 languages, the top five 
(obviously excluding English as the default language of CKM) being:

  *   Portuguese (Brazil) - 119 archetypes translated;
  *   Norwegian Bokmal with 110;
  *   Arabic (Syria) with 78
  *   Spanish (Argentina) 51
  *   Spanish (Spain) 42
Again, a huge amount of work by a very small number of volunteers and largely 
invisible and beneath the surface.

  *   CKM users
 *   As of today, 2106 registered users from 93 countries
 *   Top five countries, by number of registered users: Brasil; UK; USA; 
Australia; Sweden
 *   278 new registrants signed up this year, purely by word of mouth. 
Imagine if we did some marketing!
  *   Reviews:
 *   749 registrants have volunteered to participate in reviews
 *   This years:
*   80 unique reviewers participated this year, 75 completing at least 
1 content review and 5 reviewers participate only in translation reviews
*   23 archetypes completed at least one review round this
*   414 archetype reviews were submitted - 375 content reviews in 39 
review rounds; 34 Swedish translation reviews in 7 review rounds
  *   We have 35 projects; 18 public incubators; 15 private incubators
  *   44 archetypes are available on a ‘view only’ basis as they are ‘owned’ by 
other collaborating CKMs – 29 referenced from the UK Apperta CKM; and 5 from 
the Norway CKM

>From an operations point of view it has been really pleasing to see activity 
>increasing and new users actively engaging in reviews.

Silje and I particularly wish to thank all those who participated as Editors – 
the ongoing effort week by week, herding cats behind the scenes and teasing out 
the patterns that make each archetype implementable is easy to underestimate 
and should not be! And to Sebastian for crafting the CKM itself that powers 
this great collaborative effort.

We thank you all for your participation and encourage those who are not yet 
active to indicate your willingness by adopting archetypes that you’d like to 
participate in for review purposes. We value any and all input. There is no 
‘stupid’ answers as everyone views the content from their own professional 
perspective and unique domain knowledge.

By volunteering your comments we have collectively created an extraordinary 
international resource, with no equal – there is no body of work in the public 
domain that is so broad and deep, and so transparent and freely available. And 
all crowd sourced from volunteer participants. Please pat yourselves on the 
back for an extraordinary effort as a community!!

The year has not been without it’s dramas and disagreements, but I am 
continuously amazed at the respect and collegiality by which people collaborate 
in meetings, on openEHR clinical Slack channels and of course, in the archetype 
reviews. Unfortunately the Slack channels are only available by invite only, so 
if you would like to be included please email me directly - 
heather.les...@atomicainformatics.com
 - and I’ll add you in:

Some big topics have been ‘nailed’ this year – in particular the Medications 
family of archetype, which has constituted a massive amount of work by editors 
and reviewers. Others that have finally been published include the tricksy 
archetypes for: Contraindication; Pulse oximetry; Problem/Diagnosis